tv [untitled] March 9, 2011 7:00am-7:30am PST
. we can do some improvements to reduce localized flooding which is with impact design or other system improvements. this is the result of our modeling. we will look at how the system is performing in wet weather. the full project list treatment systems we have our dollars in 2010 as well as those in a time of construction. what we have to do is lay them out in a schedule and escalate the price to the midpoint of construction. the total sum would be $6.9 billion. now i will move into a discussion on what is in our 10-
year -- and get some conclusion as to how we move forward. really what this was is that we laid out the entire program on our schedule for all 30-years of it. the 30-year duration. there is a 10-year -- for the source of the improvement program. we are getting the planning going, getting the environment reviews started and really what we locked down was the first two years of funding. now, we are -- to get a program manager on board to assist us. at the first 10-years of our program, because we have to so many big projects starting out,
this is $4.1 billion. if we were to look just at the end-year capital program, just to finish those programs, deferring a lot of flood control, work on the outfalls, and we are living on borrowed time. we would be pushing it out for other decades to other times. there is planned work that can be methodical. we compare the -- to many other options. i want to spend some time on because this is a little bit tricky. i will have three slides that
are basically in the same month. this is a $2 million program. when you add financing, when you lay out the program over time and you add out financing cause is $1.5 billion and brings the total to $8.4 billion for that program that has everything in it. this is the system improvement program. this goes to $4.1 billion and at the financing cost would be $5.1 billion.
we will be talking about a 9% increase in program. in this case, you would be looking at other things that would be forgone. on the left of the 8 billion we have other scenarios where we are pulling trijets and reducing the amount of scope that would be delivered. in some cases, reducing actual programs. in red, you can see on the treasure island, we are at 9%. we would not be able to afford the treasure island treatment plant. we have program management. this will be scalable depending on the size of the program that we issue. we will have a larger program or
a smaller program. what we are proposing is a 15- year contract, $450 million, to have a professional group come in and analyze this program further, validate the project, validate the construction schedules. >> everything is the same except for the final column. >> yes. >> project management would be a function of city sass' the dissipation. we have staff to try to get it to move.
-- project management would be a function of the staff of the participation. if we have a project manager help us, they are slated for being able to participate in design or construction later. and minimize the risks to the system at midday the scope that we have. >> what have we learned from our current program about this particular issue? >> well, i think no one argues that we needed the help of a program manager. we have greatly benefited from
having -- and the technical expert going through a and a validating the schedule. a lot of the schedules that will support this have been created by the program. we have some challenges that we did not have. we have the bayside issues, but we also learned about these seismic standards. do you want to go through your top-10? >> are these on conflicts or more general? >> good afternoon. i am the assistant general manager. one of the big lessons was definitely the conflict of interest. as you recall, we started with -- and after five years, the companies ended up with parsons
and jacobs. one of the things that happened is that the competed and say formed two teams to compete against each other. and there was a learning curve. we had to teach them that we built over the first five years, after that five years, ruston's broke up again and they competed against each other and then parsons' teamed up with -- and -- went after it. parsons and -- one and because of the conflict of interest, we had to bifurcate the contract because parsons in the pre construction activity. the thing that we learned and that whole process is to get one
partner that will help us from the beginning to the end so that we can have a comfort but they need to know up front that they cannot pursue any other work other than helping us to plan and manage the work and they think that was a very valuable lesson. >> the reason i bring this up is because these commissioners were not here. this was not a pretty picture. i guess we did not foresee it. so, we did not anticipate correctly. i just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention that this would never happen again. that is the reason. >> >> that is why we have this very detailed chart. we have posted a draft for so
that we can solicit questions and other clarifications from consultants that might be interested in participating as our program manager. >> now, we'll go back to a chart that was similar to the first one that i walked through with you. we will talk about the differences between these programs. when we look at the $8 billion programs basically, we are all in and we are completing all of the projects that are on the list. if we look at the treatment plant project, we go across the first line to the diastolic facility. the $8 billion program completes the task and the bio solid program. it would need additional funding for the 10-year and above the 9% rate increase.
biofuel we would be able to cover under all options except for the 9%. for improvements to the treatment plants, the 6, 7, and 8 billion for southeast what would be able to cover everything. when we look at a 10-year, we would be covering only part. we would stay with our minimum which is a seismic upgrade. we would not be looking at treatment, controls, we would be making sure that the structure would be stabilized said that it could survive after an earthquake. we would be doing seismic improvements but not necessarily completing the lines and the replacing of the force mains that run from the west side on station. at north point facility, the 10- year rate increase, we would just be exclusively doing
seismic upgrades. the full list of improvements would be $7,000,000,000.- 589932685 dollars. $7 billion and $8 billion . we're not able to complete the outfall in the 10-year and -- or 9%. that is because they are because -- that is because they're outside of the 10-year area and outside of the funding. >> before you moved from the slide, it is it correct to say that the different options that get laid out there are basically three protestations as opposed -- basically different priorities as opposed to taking a different approach to the problem.
can we come up with a more clever way of doing this that will only cost 6 billion? the other is that while we only have 6 billion, we will only do these projects. i think that this represents a ladder. >> it does. that is correct. we took the full cost to be able to upgrade the facilities to make a level of service that we have prescribed to the commission process. >> these are not different visions or designs that have different costs attached, this is simply saying for this amount of money, this is what we think that we would prioritize it. the work that does not make the priority list still exists. >> correct. >> we are deferring it off the
page or something. as we proceed and have to help us take a critical look at the program, we might end up coming with an approach alternative that has different answers. i would hope that that would be the case at least in part. it is the nature of this program that this is work that has already been long postponed. when the clean water program came, these issues were on the table and we had been struggling with how and when to bring them forward and they just get worse over time. i wanted to make the point that the work that is out there, the current definition is about $8.5 billion worth of work that we might choose to find now or not
but there is it identified need. >> is this 10-years? >> prodi years. >> clearly this shows our decisions or recommendations about what we prioritize. the hope is that with some outside assistance we will do value engineering. you might choose a different priority. it is very different from the staff perspective that we need to do -- once those things that happen, they take a huge amount of money and other things fall off. >> for all of the delay that has taken place, we are at the beginning of this process. -- had some of its origins back in the mid 90's when we put together one of the first comprehensive 10-year plans.
the other part of this decade they went through a transformation and the program changed significantly. we figured out how to make it fit. i would expect that to fit here. we are looking at the current need. >> effectively, the $8 billion program is all of the needs that we have seen that our high priority that need to be addressed and we will talk about those being completed which is the $8.5 billion auction. we did not talk about the booster fund station. this is so that we can pump water out.
we need to pump against a higher level of ocean. >> i want to understand 9%. is that additional money? >> they would be similar to the 10-year request. >> this would be a reduced request if we were looking at getting a budget approved to be able to move forward and we were trying to stick with the single digits, we would be your approving less money. >> if you do the $8 million project over time, you would
have rate increases that might start of small but in some outer years you can have 12%, 18%. what if you will really constrained to not having a rate increase. this is what we would choose to do and what we could afford to do if you are limiting yourself to never going above the rate increase. >> i think that you just answered my question. it would be a different answer if we said the combined rates were not increased. >> we can talk about what you are more or less comfortable with. once he finished the program, he will not have a major increase for a while.
>> thank you. >> we will move on to collection systems. if we are looking from our 8 billion all of the projects included, are 10-year to the right of that. the channel tunnel is included in the first three. we would be able to complete some of the consolidation for the title. we would not be able to complete some of the projects that we have right now we could drop to the facilities to be able to accommodate for climate change. some are located in areas that are expected to be inundated in the future.
this is included for all five and that was the same basin where we had our sinkhole. then, all of the rest of the projects that say flood control or a low impact design, we have a mixed level of things. if we are doing partial improvements with the 6 billion, two basins. we are doing partial improvements with the remaining six% with 7 billion, we are only doing partial improvements. when you look at the 10-year, we have four basins where we are doing partial improvements. but we have a way to go with little impact designed. we have to install some of these solutions and much richer them and see how well they work.
-- and monitor them and see how well they work. we will see what the problems are coming up with the fixes. these will work with sequential rain storms. we continue to study the patterns and storm intensity. we want to have these improvements, actually. that is why this first was not everything. this was to have real projects that can be delivered to solve this flooding problems that we have on the books. if you go down to backed flood prevention, the only project that would resolve all of our overflow structures and prevent a saltwater from coming in is the 200 million under the $8 billion column. control across the board, the
urban watershed assessment, which is where we will do that analysis. really, what that $9 million price gets us is a plan that then we can attack each of these areas that is susceptible to flooding and come up with solutions. the very bottom row, better fleets, connections, low impact design. we have a flat amount for the first four and in a reduce the amount. what those are our collaborations with the school district to test out different technologies and different ways of capturing storm water to see if it is affective. also, this is where we allow the funds to be used by homeowners and businesses to disconnect
their downspouts. this is really more educational than something we would be adding into the system. now i wanted to show you so you are not absolutely flummoxed is what we have on the table in terms of the first two years and that is what is locked down. in the 10-year program, what we have rarely locked in are the first two years of funding. i know that was horrible. this is confusing. this is the best way to compare them side by side. we have $10 million. biofuel, about 3.5 million for the first two years. if we look to the right, we're
looking for $15 million in the 11-12 budget these are just treatment projects. if we go to the next slide for a collection system, the funds that we have gotten our $10 million and there was an additional $2 million for low impact design. our two-year request which would be fixed in the budget is that you know we would be coming to you with the 10-year and none would be making changes. we would have more detailed information to share with you. we are looking at 21.5. this is 81 million.
>> i don't see a under control which is at 50 million and no money is spent with odor control. >> we are looking at putting fence and other capital. >> people have to wait until that? >> unless we move the project up in the schedule. this is something that we have done. this has consent the port area and actually this is getting worse
we are actually having exasperated order issues, because they are not going as quickly as they should be. the first-year budget is locked in, but for 2012, that number could be increased, but that is the first year we are looking at getting funds for the perimeter storage transfer box order control. commissioner: are we not doing some odor control now? commissioner: we do not want everyone to leave here today
thinking that we are not going to do anything about the odor control. it has encroached on where it was before. it is a significant project. there was another project, and there was a whole slew of projects, and do not forget, but operating costs to operate and maintain them, now that those projects are done, they will be handling coders as an operation, no longer as a structure -- handling the coders has an operation. -- the odors. >> we have $6 million going in for odor control. the koran year was not rolled in. -- the current year was not rolled in.
commissioner: all of those are zero, as well. finding the odor control numbers on the sheet. >> you would have had $6 million. commissioner: 1 line is that? >> it is line 14. -- what line is that? i would make the objection that it would show six and that year, if we did it that way. the commissioner: it is a simple communication issue. that is all. >> they are not going to do
anything about it until 2012. >> ok, and our last slide, ms. espinola reminded me that we spent 24 months working with the neighbors of the southeast water pollution treatment to control plant, working on odor controls, odor processes, and we actually have staff that specifically their day-to-day is odor control, testing, and meeting facilities. within our other planned upgrades, as well, we have other odor control